 | |
| U.S. District Court Judge Walter H. Rice |
But it was the statement of the judge's personal opinion about the Second Amendment that was interesting. Judge Price said he supported the Second Amendment. He then said that open and concealed carry laws were a danger to any community.
Employees and others also cannot bring their guns to the federal court building in Dayton, said U.S. District Court Judge Walter H. Rice.Judge Rice was appointed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. He is 80 years old. Judge Rice entered senior status in 2003, when he was 66. He is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Dayton School of Law. Senior status means he receives full salary, but can have a reduced workload at the District Court.
"Federal installations are not bound by the state law except in certain situations which I don't think are relevant," Rice said. "My opinion is that it is not applicable to federal facilities unless the federal installation decides to adopt that portion of the law. What I said applies to the parking lot as well."
Rice said Ohio's expansion of open carry and concealed-carry laws concern him.
"I think open carry (and concealed-carry) laws, with all due deference to the Second Amendment, which I support...are dangerous to any community because of the epidemic of mental health issues throughout this country," he said. "Putting guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people is a recipe for disaster."
Judges may have their personal opinions, of course. Perhaps Judge Price could put aside his personal opinion that actually being able to bear arms under the Second Amendment is the same as "Putting guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people..." and rule on the law instead of what he wishes it to be.
It is likely a long held view. The evidence that restoring Second Amendment rights make communities more safe, has only been widely published for 20 years. The facts are disputed in liberal circles, but evidence is lacking to reinforce their talking points.
Judges are sometimes asked to recuse themselves, because their comments, rulings, or conduct would cast doubt on their ability to hear the case without bias, or that a reasonable observer would think they would be biased.
The chances of Senior Judge Rice ruling in a Second Amendment case are not insignificant. Perhaps knowledgeable readers can let us know if there are grounds to ask for recusal in such an event.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
7 comments:
The exact wording is in the second edition of volume 16 of American jurisprudence around section 152 to section 155. A judicial officer is not permitted to express an opinion or bias or he must recuse himself from the case or resign. if He does not recuse himself or resign he must be impeached and removed from office. Most federal court law libraries have a copy of that book. It also states in that book judicial officers must enforce the laws as written until the laws are changed, that means they do not get to interpret the law and can not use words in their decision that are not in the law. changing words changes meaning and is in fact an attempt to interpret. Let me point out what I mean . If a law says it is illegal to throw a ball at a glass window this means all balls it can not be added to say base ball or foot ball or basket ball. any ball is the object of the law. the same a keep and bear. adding open or concealed are words not in the second amendment. To keep and bear is to own or have in your possession and carry any way, any where you please. the second amendment does not have any qualifiers written into it. judges AND LEGISLATORS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO AD QUALIFIERS. only THE PEOPLE CAN ADD QUALIFIERS BY RATIFYING AN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. there are only 26 words in the second amendment that are legal to enforce. anything else is opinion, bias or an interpretation. and by nature are unconstitutional infringements. Open you eyes and read it for your self. You will not find any where the authority to require a permit of a license to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. I could care less how much some people like the idea of permits or licenses. there is no constitutional authority to require them. The framers knew exactly what they were doing, they were trying to protect us from loyalists, in other words left wing ass holes. Never compromise with an ass hole you will always get shit on.
They tried this kind of thinking with prohibition and we know how that turned out. Beer was used as a medicine back in the early years of the 20th century. You had to have a permit to make legal beer for medicine. My mother was very young and very sick her mother got a permit to make beer for her medicine. being the enterprising person Granny was she made a lot of medicine and every cop in town would drop by to check on my mothers health, donate to her medicine fund and stagger out after approving the quality of the medicine.
There is an old saying, you can please some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can not please all of the people all of the time. that is why making law should never consider special groups a law is only good law when it effects everyone in the same way without separating any specific group. Income tax is historically unconstitutional. because there should not be different levels. Income is income. 2 percent is two percent ten percent is 10%. every body should pay the same percent no matter what their income is. Historically income has never been considered taxable because it is not profit. Income was never taxed after the year 500 AD until the US government decided to violate the constitution and violate historical precedent. the same way the US government violated the US constitution when it passed the 1934 NFA. the second amendment commands shall not be infringed. Infringed is adding anything to the 26 written words. Bear is bear defining bear is not permitted because the permission is not written. If it is not written it does not exist. When the second amendment was written and ratified no one needed to get a permit or forced to pay for special training nor were they told when, how or where they could carry. So what has changed, Not a single word in the second amendment, just special interest in political groups, too bad, their concerns are not constitutional and can not be considered when applying the enforcement of the 26 words. the wording in the constitution does not permit the creation of different classes of citizens. a legal citizen is a legal citizen , period. I do not need a permit to exercise my second amendment right and you do not need a permit to exercise your first amendment right. we are not ruled by the opinions of the few. we are ruled by what is physically written in valid laws. Judges do not have to like those laws but they do have to enforce them as written. Any judge that fails to do so should be removed.
Judges that qualify to be called an activist judge, those that lack the personal integrity and honor to live up to their oath of office should be called unemployed.
Does anyone remember the alcohol prohibition Amendment..,,,?
The XVIII amendment was ratified January 16, 1919 and repealed by the XXI amendment December 5, 1933. the second Amendment has never been repealed or amended. It stands as written and is still in full force and effect. The XIV amendment makes it very clear the state must enforce the federal constitution above their own. states have no authority to write gun laws. States can not require permits or licenses to carry. the IX amendment makes it clear that carry is an individual right. all state weapons laws are repugnant to our federal constitution and therefore are void.
"I think open carry (and concealed-carry) laws, with all due deference to the Second Amendment, which I support...are dangerous to any community because of the epidemic of mental health issues throughout this country," he said. "Putting guns in the hands of mentally incompetent people is a recipe for disaster.”
Mr? I think the judiciary should be abolished because of the mental health issues throughout this country. Putting the power of the gavel in the hands of mentally incompetent people is a recipe for disaster.
Yes, that’s right, it’s the same argument. He’s not allowed to argue that it doesn’t apply to him because he’s not mentally incompetent. He didn’t make any exception for the competent 99.99% of the people who carry guns. So suck it, yer honor.
Post a Comment